A69533:307
Five disputations of church-government and worship
Five disputations of church-government and worship by Richard Baxter.
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1659
Whether it be Necessary or Profitable to the right order or the Pea… › Argument 10
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Perhaps they'll say that, while we pretend to take down Bishops, we do but set up more, and would have many for one,1 while we would have every Corporation or Parish to have a Bishop. To which I answer, its true:2 but then it is not the same sort of Bishops which we would exclude and which we would ⟨p. 52⟩multiply: we would exclude those Bishops that would undertake two or three hundred mens work themselves, and will rule a whole Diocese alone (or by a Lay Chancellor) when every conscionable man that hath faithfully tried it, doth feel the oversight of one Congregation to be so great a burden, that it makes him groan and groan again. We would exclude those Bishops that would exclude all others in a whole Diocese, that they may do the work alone, and so leave it undone, while they plead that it belongs to them to do it. If they will come into the Lords Harvest, and exclude from the work of Government, the Labourers of a whole County or two, we have reason to contradict them. But this is not to bring in more such Bishops as they that will shut out others, but to keep in the necessary labouring Bishops whom they would shut out. Nor do we shut out them themselves as Labourers or Rulers, but as the excluders of the Labourers or Rulers. If we have a Church to build that requireth necessarily two hundred workmen, and some Pillars in it to Erect, of many hundred tun weight, if one of the workmen would say, that it belongs to him to do it all himself, or at least when the materials are brought to the place prepared, to rear and order and place every stone and pillar in the building, I would no otherwise exclude the vain pretender then by introducing necessary help that the work may be done; and I should think him a silly Civiller •hat would tell me, that while I exclude him, I do •ut multiply such as he; when his every fault consisted in an hinderance of that necessary multiplication.
Perhaps they'le say that, while we pretend to take down Bishops, we do but set up more, and would have many for one,1 while we would have every Corporation or Parish to have a Bishop. To which I answer, its true: